1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the business of facility protection of the general type where a patrolling guard or other means is used to discourage unauthorized entry, passage through restricted areas, unauthorized interactions, unauthorized removal of assets (property) or unauthorized exit. More specifically, it pertains to an integrated system which allows a guard, at a remote location, to project force against unauthorized parties who trespass into the protected area, and to project adjustable and observable levels of such force in order to inflict only that level of effect deemed necessary to accomplish the protection or intervention or incarceration objective.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The classic solution for facility protection is a manned guard force patrolling the protected region or area and its approaches. This is manpower-intensive and puts the guard or guards at significant risk. It also has historically provided the same intensity of protection over the entire area to be protected notwithstanding that some portions of the area (called the "vital" area) may require more protection than other portions.
Secured and locked facilities, involving physical barriers, such as walls and fences, and controlled access, such as doors and gates, have been used to augment the guards, or sometimes to replace them. Remote detection, such as trip wires, heat sensors and light beams, have been employed to extend the area and number of approaches that a limited guard force can patrol, by focusing their attention on the known anomalous condition. However, these can be subject to false alarms and they provide no immediate method for countering the threat.
Manned remote detection using viewing systems, such as telescopes and closed circuit television, have been employed to allow human discernment from a remote location. However, while this reduces false alarms, it still provides no immediate method for countering the threat. Further, these remote detection systems invariably are visible to the intruder and are easy targets for disablement prior to entering the guarded area.
Alarm systems, such as flashing lights and sirens, have been used to convey to unauthorized persons that they are acting beyond the parameters and protocols established for the protected facility. However, these are low-power devices and are often ignored by an intentional belligerent. Further, these devices usually precede later entry by guards thus providing a time delay wherein the intruder can increase the threat to the guarded area such as by further intrusion or by stationing others to repel the guards. This calls for more manpower which raises the cost of protection.
Extended reach weapons, such as guns, police clubs and water hoses, have been used to allow guards to enforce their intention while maximizing distance or exposure to the unauthorized persons, to minimize the guard's risk of injury and/or overcome a numerical superiority. However, such weapons require a heightened degree of skill on the part of the guard and the acquisition of financial insurance to ameliorate the effects of property damages and personal injuries caused by negligent, wrongful or excessive use of the weapons.
Some means, however, have been used in a variety of ways, such as karate, choke holds, Mace.RTM., tear gas, etc., which are intended to provide the guard force with incremental levels of a rebuffing force, termed an "adjustable" effect. Except for the case of "hands-on techniques", such as choke holds and karate, most adjustable techniques are prone to a broad range of undesired outcomes such as missing the intended suspect altogether, hitting a more vulnerable area of the suspect than desired, hitting a bystander or damaging the asset the guard is trying to protect.
Remote release of inhibiting agents, such as chemical gas or guard dogs, have been used to interdict unauthorized personnel while significantly limiting the guard's exposure. Such remote agents historically tend to be non-selective and difficult to control, i.e. they are non-adjustable. In addition, these inhibiting agents may cause undesirable effects on the intruder, such as a debilitating injury or death, that could bring about litigation for negligent use of these protection devices. Further, inhibiting agents may persist in the area, complicating entry by guard forces who may be dispatched to secure the area. Finally, such remote agents could contaminate the controlled area or, even worse, leave the controlled area and achieve undesirable collateral effects, including residual contamination.
In addition, there are numerous instances where a variety of types or intensities of protection are required. For instance, in an area leading up to a door way, on the other side of which is located a vital asset to be protected, the general area away from the door may require a first level of protection, merely to thwart innocent trespassers, whereas the area immediately in front of the door may require a second and greater level of protection to stop intentional trespassers. Once the entrant passes through the door, the ability to protect the asset is gone forever.
On approaching the door, exposure to increasing protective force may be controlled to increase the protective energy to which the entrant is exposed thus increasing the protective nature surrounding the door. The final measure of protection is where the entrant reaches the door only to succumb to the energy adjacent the door. Therefore, it is imperative that the highest level of protection be located at or near the door.